News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Design v. Construction
« Last post by Blake Conant on Today at 09:45:47 AM »
can you be more specific about well-built?
2
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Design v. Construction
« Last post by David Wuthrich on Today at 09:24:23 AM »

It is the chicken and the egg.


You really can't have one without the other.
3
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Weak Holes
« Last post by Ira Fishman on Today at 09:13:56 AM »
"What slowed it down so much? Habits. Bad habits I think. In many cases it is also the difficulty of the course. Bunker play is time consuming, you have to climb in there and then hitting it and cleaning up after you are done with it. Generally speaking a difficult course is a slow course. You see them come up to par threes and there are three groups waiting to play the hole, that is common, but it is also demonstrating that the place is too difficult. There was a panel at Victoria Golf Club recently discussing the course and they asked me ‘do you think we have any weak holes?’ my reply to that was, ‘if you don’t have any weak holes, well you should have!’ They didn’t know what to say, but that is the point. Golf course architecture is following the tried and proven route, like at St Andrews, there are seven holes without a bunker near the green. The difficulties are the grass, cut close or not, a bit of heather and it functions beautifully."


The above is the full quote which prompted Tim G. to start the thread.  It is Peter Thomson talking about Championships becoming a victim of slow play. 


Ira
4
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Design v. Construction
« Last post by Peter Pallotta on Today at 08:15:14 AM »
There's some university student's major paper/thesis to be written about this, ie how does golf course 'design' change when every top designer knows he'll be the 'builder' as well?
What kind of golf courses get built when designs are not bibles or blueprints but first-draft ideas instead?
When you know that you can change/edit the work in 'production', how does that affect the way you think about 'pre-production'?
If no one else (an outside builder) will be able to misunderstand or mess up your work (the design), how much less obvious or overt will that design likely be?
Conversely, how much less planned and/or bulletproof does a design need to be when you're not worried about ensuring that someone else understands and honours it?
To flip the OP around a bit: I have no idea how much different (and differently regarded) the courses referenced by Kyle would be if Tom D and C&C and Gil etc had sent their plans/designs to outside builders instead of doing it in-house.
That those courses were 'well designed' would likely still be obvious, but (in that alternative universe) would it become clearer what was the 'framework' and what the 'finishing'?

Peter
 
5
Golf Course Architecture / Design v. Construction
« Last post by Kyle Harris on Today at 05:52:51 AM »
Is a well-built golf course superior to a well-designed golf course?

I say yes.

Perhaps that's why all the significant work over the past ten years has gone to the Design/Build outfits. You get two for one and often for less expense.
6
I am afraid the RSPB is more a political lobby group only interested in preventing any sort of development. I am unsurprised by the inaccuracies in their report. There is a reason they are disliked by most highland landowners.
7
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Weak Holes
« Last post by Sean_A on Today at 04:28:55 AM »
I believe Simpson had referred to Alps holes as such. Clearly not good holes in any normal sense of the word. But ones that are certainly anything but lacking in interest.

This very thought is a major drawback with the first wave great archies.  I think they over-codified what was considered good or bad with too much emphasis on strategy VS penal.  Part of the process of strategic meant trying to wipe out blind shots and cross hazards....which isn't awful if tempered, but I don't admire the one direction philosophy.  I guess there is a price to pay when any one approach to design is relied upon too heavily. I recall this type of converation concerning Pennard.  My adamant belief is we are fortunate that a "Colt" didn't get hold of that property.  I think a much more standard course in the style of many well known links would have been built rather than the one-off that is Pennard.

Ciao

Generally speaking, I agree with this sentiment. But I think you can't simplify it down to philosophy. Within the strategic golden age designers, some played it safer than others.

For me, Colt has always been the safe pair of hands. Nothing outrageous, nothing too adventurous. Simpson, on the other hand, was nearer the other end of the scale. Perhaps that was why the former held an apparent dislike for the latter. Perhaps that's why he believed Simpson to have created "bad" holes. e.g. The Widow.

Ally

To me Simpson doesn't stand out as something appreciably different to the crowd with blind shots and cross bunkers.  I don't think these guys liked that sort of thing, but would tolerate it once in a while.  Where Simspon stood out is his use of centreline bunkers...he was very good with the concept and I see that approach used fairly often on the new breed strategic courses. Simpson also was a but different in his shaping.  He sometimes did some great centreline hollows which paired beautifully with bunkering.  Was Simpson practically the only guy back then doing unnecesary shaping for fairways?

Ciao
8
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Weak Holes
« Last post by Thomas Dai on Today at 04:11:25 AM »
What about holes that look weak/easy but are actually quite the opposite?
Holes where folk walk on the tee thinking birdie and walk off the green with a bogey on the card and a grumpy expression on the face.
Atb
9
Golf Course Architecture / Re: When have I no longer played a course?
« Last post by Sean_A on Today at 04:09:00 AM »
Matt

I don't know where a line should be drawn, but it is rare that I would say I haven't played a course.  I am leaning toward Oakland Hills as possibly a course I would say has changed enough that I am not sure  have played it...same for Turmberry.  Looking back on Pinehurst #2 I think the course is different enough to say I hadn't played it.

Ciao
10
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Weak Holes
« Last post by Ally Mcintosh on Today at 01:48:23 AM »
I believe Simpson had referred to Alps holes as such. Clearly not good holes in any normal sense of the word. But ones that are certainly anything but lacking in interest.

This very thought is a major drawback with the first wave great archies.  I think they over-codified what was considered good or bad with too much emphasis on strategy VS penal.  Part of the process of strategic meant trying to wipe out blind shots and cross hazards....which isn't awful if tempered, but I don't admire the one direction philosophy.  I guess there is a price to pay when any one approach to design is relied upon too heavily. I recall this type of converation concerning Pennard.  My adamant belief is we are fortunate that a "Colt" didn't get hold of that property.  I think a much more standard course in the style of many well known links would have been built rather than the one-off that is Pennard.

Ciao


Generally speaking, I agree with this sentiment. But I think you can't simplify it down to philosophy. Within the strategic golden age designers, some played it safer than others.


For me, Colt has always been the safe pair of hands. Nothing outrageous, nothing too adventurous. Simpson, on the other hand, was nearer the other end of the scale. Perhaps that was why the former held an apparent dislike for the latter. Perhaps that's why he believed Simpson to have created "bad" holes. e.g. The Widow.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10